I don't understand the point of this discussion.
I do appreciate the help that you and others so readily give, and I'm sorry you didn't like my statement, but I stand by it. (Please note that I'm not arguing for a large change in the way things work--that's David's argument, if he wants to make it.) LilyPond is a great program, but some things that ought to be easy are far too hard to do for a person who doesn't know the internal workings of the program very well. I'm not arguing for doing away with Scheme entirely, or hiding the internals entirely. Nor am I saying that I shouldn't have to dive in and learn more if I want to do something that really is complex (or live without being able to do it). But I look at the examples I and others have given, and I simply don't see why they should require knowledge of LilyPond internals to accomplish. As LilyPond has matured, has its ease of use has quite kept pace with its output capabilities? If the goal is to make it easy for many people to make beautiful-looking music, isn't it worth checking now and then to see if there are simple ways to make that easier? Geoff _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
